English
" And even that paritta, because it is not fundamental, some, unable to preserve it in a single form, preserve it concisely, some extensively, some insert certain verses, some omit them. Some bhikkhus, unable to recite even that mixed paritta at times of auspicious ceremonies, abandon it and recite other suttas instead. All of this seems improper. Why? Because all four Great Kings, this Āṭānāṭiya ṃ, the protection, they arranged it for the appeasement of non-humans in the Buddha's dispensation, for the non-molestation of the four assemblies, they arranged it thus, and for no other reason. For it is said there: "There are mighty yakkhās dwelling there, who are displeased with this teaching of the Blessed One; for their appeasement, may the Blessed One, venerable sir, take up the Āṭānāṭiya protection for the safety, for the protection, for the non-harming, for the comfortable living of monks, nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers." And by the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, at the conclusion of this discourse, it was said: "Learn, monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection; master, monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection; remember, monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection. The Āṭānāṭiya protection, monks, is beneficial for the safety, for the protection, for the non-harming, for the comfortable living of monks, nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers." Thus was the memorization enjoined upon the monks, and its benefit proclaimed. And by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers it was said: "There is not even a single letter or a single word in what the Buddha taught that should be removed." Therefore, it is proper to remember and recite the original Āṭānāṭiya Sutta, which was arranged by the four Great Kings, directly spoken by the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, and included in the three recitations, and not a mixed discourse not spoken by the Blessed One and not included in the three recitations. However, this preliminary ritual for the Āṭānāṭiya protection, found in the Dīghanikāya Aṭṭhakathā, was not spoken by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers with reference to ordinary recitation and chanting, but rather with reference to the chanting of it like a worldly mantra for the purpose of freeing a householder or a renunciant when seized by non-humans. For it is said there: "One seized by a non-human should be asked: 'What is your name?'" and so on. And the Āṭānāṭiya protection is not the entire sutta, but rather the passage beginning with "Homage to Vipassī" which occurs four times in connection with the four Great Kings. Having made the phrase "We revere the Victor, Gotama" the conclusion, it is only a portion of the recited Sutta. If it is asked, "How is this understood?" Starting with "Then indeed, King Vessavaṇa, knowing the Lord's consent, spoke this Āṭānāṭiya protection," and because at the end of the aforementioned Sutta portion, it is concluded with "Indeed, friends, this is the Āṭānāṭiya protection." Therefore, just as tigers and the like become fiercely ill-disposed towards those who plunder their prey, even so, non-humans become ill-disposed towards those who release humans they have seized. Thus, it should be understood that this preparatory ritual of the Āṭānāṭiya protection was spoken by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers for the removal of dangers for the bhikkhus when they began to release (humans) in that way. This is the embellishment of the discourse on the decision regarding the performance of the protection. 20. Regarding "Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāta" (Vinaya Vibhanga Ṭīkā 1.185): here, "āmaṭṭho" means "touched," and "na āmaṭṭho" is "anāmaṭṭho" (untouched). "Piṇḍapāta" means "falling in lumps," i.e., almsfood. Thus, "anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāta" means almsfood that is untouched, not yet taken, not yet consumed. Even if it is worth a kahāpaṇa, this indicates that it was carefully prepared with many sauces by the donors and given respectfully. Therefore, it is said, "There is no squandering of faith-given offerings." Thus, even giving expensive food, respectfully given with faith, to one's parents is not considered a squandering of faith-given offerings, much less inexpensive food, is the intention. Since it is not stated that it is permissible to give to ten others, as in the case of medicine, by mentioning only the five (relatives) beginning with the mother, it is established that it is not permissible to send and give to other relatives. However, because it will be stated later, "or to any visitor who has arrived at the monastery," it is permissible to give to relatives who have arrived at the monastery, treating them as ordinary visitors. "Thālake" refers to plates belonging to the Sangha, made of bronze or similar materials. Bowls are also included here. By "not permissible," it shows that it is a dukkaṭa (offence of wrong-doing). "Dāmarikacorassa" refers to a notorious thief who aspires to the throne. Even if not given, " They get angry, thinking, "They do not give." This is the connection. The covering up, the closing, the mending of the gap, the opening that arises between oneself and another due to the non-receipt of material things and Dhamma, is called mending. This is twofold: according to Dhamma and according to material things. Regarding material mending, it is said, "To whom should it be done, to whom should it not be done?" To a guest, or... it should be done. To make this clear, it is said, "First, to a guest..." "Whose provisions are exhausted" shows their helpless state and their deserving of compassion. Thus, it is established that it is not proper to give to those who are well-off, even if they are guests. After saying, "Without expecting anything," it is said, "People, indeed..." to show the nature of expectation. However, it is not proper to give to those who are not permitted, even without expectation, because it would be a waste of a gift given with faith. If there is expectation, it also becomes a defilement of the family. "Having driven away" means having made the people flee who were plundering within a three-yojana radius. "A beautiful, varied covering" means a covering adorned with various excellent figures of men and women, and so on. This is the embellishment of the discourse on the determination of mending. Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha, The embellishment of the discourse on the determination of medicines, and so on, is the third chapter. 4. Discourse on the Determination of Requesting 21. Having thus explained the determination of medicines, and so on, now, to explain the determination of requesting, it is said, "Requesting means asking," and so on. Here, viññāpanā is viññatti, meaning, "We have need of this." It is said to be asking. Therefore, it is said, "Requesting means asking." Here, the meaning is that this determination, which I am about to state, should be known regarding requesting. "By uprooting" means by freeing it from being another's property and making it one's own. Thus, for one who asks in this way, there is an unknown request dukkata and a slave-acceptance dukkata. Based on the saying, "He refrains from accepting male and female slaves," the commentary prohibits... by striking. But for one who asks for a slave for root-cutting from a relative's invited place, there is a dukkaṭa merely by assenting. "One's own work" means the work of taking life. And this is said to avoid the fault of taking life, not to avoid a request. It is said to show what is proper, that one should not ask without specifying, but for one who asks for manual work with a pure mind, there is no offense. It is permissible to have anything done, so it is permissible even without asking, saying, "I ask for manual work, give it." Even for one who has his own work done in this way, there is no request, but it is said by distinguishing to show what is proper. "To show that everything is allowable" means to show that everything is allowable in every way. It is said that it is permissible to say, "Give the root," because it was first said, "We will give the root," so it is not a request, nor is the word "root" an unallowable word, being a general word for allowable and unallowable things, nor is it assenting to an unallowable thing by giving it to those whose wage-work is finished. "For root-cutting" is said here because there is no state of being a slave or maid for pillars and the like. "Unoccupied" means unpossessed, meaning ownerless. 22. Not only that… In "desiring to have robes and so on made," it should be understood that even if there is no dukkaṭa due to a request when having a robe woven by unknown, uninvited weavers by way of asking for manual work, there are pācittiya and dukkaṭa offenses as appropriate according to the training rule on having robes woven. "Unallowable kahāpaṇas and so on should not be given." It is said that it is permissible to say, "Give this kahāpaṇa for doing work there," even if it was obtained through an allowable means. Although no fault is seen in giving for work done previously, they say it is improper. There is no fault for one who gives wages indirectly by an allowable expression even for work done, but in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 1.342) it says, "Although unallowable kahāpaṇas and so on should not be given, by one who does not assent to unallowable kahāpaṇas and so on…" It is permissible to give from an improper transaction, yet it is not suitable, and people think that if he has anything, it should be harassed, so the giving of improper kahāpaṇas and so on is forbidden. It is said: "Having cooked it in that way," means having cooked it by hand. "What, venerable sir?" Even if asked this much, he may state for what purpose he entered, being asked and questioned. 23. It is a custom that is observed, but there is no offense, this is the meaning. "They should be made proper and then received.